'Stop Right There!' - Trump VP Candidate Bombshell During Live Interview

Hey ladies and gentlemen, this is Carmine Sabia for Explain America and a Trump vice presidential

candidate just had it out with a CNN anchor. Before we get started, please make sure you like

comment, share and subscribe. Those little things really help us out and they help our

channel continue to grow. J.D. Vance, one of the top contenders to be Trump's vice president pick

he was on CNN talking to anchor Caitlin Collins when he was talking about presidential immunity

and how important presidential immunity is. And Caitlin Collins tried to get him with a gotcha

question about, well, what if the president, you know, ordered this, that or the other? Would that

be an official act? And what he was trying to explain is that much like Trump's attorneys

were saying, it depends on the circumstances, what was happening, what was the reason

And Caitlin Collins, she didn't want to hear any of that. She didn't care about the legal aspects of this. She wanted to get him in a gotcha question because I think they're

trying to systematically destroy every one of Trump's vice presidential possibilities. Now you guys know where I stand. Tim Scott is my guy. If I could pick the vice president

it's Tim Scott all day, every day. But I do want you to watch this interview and I want you to tell

me if you think this was fair and what you think of his answer. Please remember to like, comment

share and subscribe. I'm Carmine Sabia for Explain America. We love you guys. God bless you

Take care, everybody. You're a Yale-educated attorney, and I want to get your take on what we saw happen last week, those immunity arguments

before the Supreme Court where Trump's team, his attorney, argued that a president could

order the military to stage a coup and to have their political opponent assassinated and be

immune from prosecution unless this theory that they were impeached and then convicted

by the Senate. Do you share the view that presidents are basically above the law

Look, Caitlyn, I think we have to be careful about imputing words into the president's

attorneys that they didn't actually say. What the president's attorney said is that

what the president's attorney said, Caitlyn, to be clear, is that there is a checks and balances

system in our constitution. Now, some things the president does, private acts, are liable

to criminal penalties, but most of the things that the president does in their official duties

we have a system of impeachment. We have a system of checks and balances. The legislative branch

that I'm a member of, the judicial branch, I did not read the president's attorneys as saying

that the president could order a coup. The president's attorneys are saying that the

constitutional checks and balances system would address that problem, and I think that's an

important distinction. But let me stop you right there, because I listened to this. It's John Sauer, Trump's attorney, and when he was asked by one of the justices if the president could order

the military to stage a coup, and would it count as an official act, meaning he couldn't be

prosecuted for it, he said it would depend on the circumstances. I mean, what circumstances

warrant a president ordering the military to stage a coup? Well, first of all, I did say it

depends on the circumstances. That opens up a whole lot of avenue for context there. But more

importantly, Caitlyn, he's just saying that would count as an official act. But there are a number

But that's an official act in your view too? But could I finish the answer to the question

Caitlyn? An official act, there are a number of checks and balances in our system. There's

the impeachment process. There's the budgeting authority that Congress has. There are a number

of ways where Congress has a check and balance control over the president of the United States

All he's saying is that the criminal liability procedures that exist in this country don't

cover the president's official acts. And by the way, how could anybody disagree with that, Caitlyn

Should Barack Obama be prosecuted for killing an American citizen via a drone strike? There are a

number of examples in American history where if you apply the standard, the lawfare standard of

the Biden administration against Donald Trump, it would make the presidency impossible to actually

execute the law. So in the name of taking down their political opponent, Caitlyn, these guys are

really pushing a legal theory that I think would destroy the presidency, whether a Democrat or

Republican was in charge. Well, I don't think Jack Smith is running for office, but on what you're

saying, you're basically saying that if the president orders the military to stage a coup

you believe the only remediation for that is that he can be impeached or that Congress can restrict

the budget? Well, Caitlyn, first of all, you're dealing with hypotheticals here that are completely

outside the bounds of this particular situation. Donald Trump did not order a coup, despite the

fact that a lot of media people say that he did, on January the 6th. He encouraged people to protest

peacefully. And of course, most people on January 6th did protest peacefully. What I'm saying is

that you have to have some measure of liability for the official acts of presidency of the United

States. And the way to create a check and balance on that system is what the constitution prescribes

here. You can't have prosecutors, many of whom of course are deeply embedded with the Democratic

Party, trying to destroy the life of a former president who's now running for president because

they think that they have a better argument for what that president should have done

You can have a political disagreement with Donald Trump, and that's totally reasonable

You shouldn't destroy the presidency in the process. And I think that's what a lot of the

Biden administration department of justice is trying to do. But you essentially are agreeing

that, that the presidents should not be able to be prosecuted. Let me ask you something else